Using RR logos on toys-copyright violations?

I'm just curious. Do companies that make toy trains have to buy a license from the RRs to use their logos and trademarks?

For the big railroads and their predecessors, yes. All of the Class I's have a trademark licensing program. Fees are a big issue for the small manufacturers.

I don't know about smaller regional and shortline railroads.

The issue has been covered fairly extensively in Model Railroader magazine

Its also starting to pop up in the Virtual modeling world as well. Many of the well known Auran "Trainz" modelers have had to aquire a license from CSX and UP in order to sell their models.

This has been a hot topic in the last few years, with the Union Pacific coming down hard on the model and toy makers, almost to the point where many did not want to model that roadname. Most other railroads saw the publicity as a benefit to them, and didn't place unreasonable restrictions on the use of their logos. Mike Wolf of MTH Trains luckily worked out a compromise with UP that most manufacturors have applauded.

Also, don't forget that a lot of companies will flat-out lie to you, and say "You can't use our trademark!" when in fact you can. The real obstacle is copyright law. A graphical logo can be both a trademark, and a copyrighted creative work. You can always use a trademark truthfully, so an argument that you're making an accurate model of something would go a long way to getting a trademark infringement suit dismissed. Copyright you can infringe on a "fair use" basis, but commercial fair use is very tricky. The purpose of copyright is to allow copyright holders to profit from distribution of their work. Fair use almost always has to be non-commercial (except for things like parody, e.g. those Mad Magazine product parodies from years prior.)

It's complicated. Don't let companies say "We get to control ALL use of our Intellectual Property" because they don't.

U.P have got to be the worst in this regard. i could see where corect use of a logo might be an issue, but who else would use a logo more correctly than the modeling industry? it's free publicity for them, nobody in the mainstream gives a **** what a railroads logo is, its disgustingly petty for them to bully on small manufacturers, forcing us to pay more for products marked u.p.

the missing link wrote:U.P have got to be the worst in this regard. i could see where corect use of a logo might be an issue, but who else would use a logo more correctly than the modeling industry? it's free publicity for them, nobody in the mainstream gives a **** what a railroads logo is, its disgustingly petty for them to bully on small manufacturers, forcing us to pay more for products marked u.p.

The key word, of course, is "pay." Just another revenue stream for the RRs...

the missing link wrote:U.P have got to be the worst in this regard. i could see where corect use of a logo might be an issue, but who else would use a logo more correctly than the modeling industry?

I dunno, some of that old 70s Tyco junk didn't use a lot of logos correctly. I think most hobby manufacturers today do a great job on their product, but wasn't always the case.

It's not just models though. Consider anything from those hats, T-shirts, even those acrylic RR signs I've seen at shows. Some of it's nice and some of it's junk.

I'm sure UPRR has gotten calls or served with lawsuits from stupid people saying "Hey this UPRR something is dangerous - my kid choked on the button that fell off your UPRR Jr Engineers hat" and they say "What Jr Engineers hat?" So I can see why they'd be interested in who's using their trademarks. Thank you, money grubbing product liability and injury trial lawyers.

Consider this. What would you do if your own name or face was being used to sell products? Hey buy the "WANF-11--Chaser brand pooper scooper - he knows alot about dung because he's full of it!"

I agree that the financial aspect is tacky - considering how much RRs make in profits each quarter - but like AC/DC says....Money Talks.....
Should they charge? Probably not. But if it were you, you'd want a cut of the money too...If you disagree then tell us truthfully that you wouldn't.

I think the same applies to UPRR et al - although I disagree that corporations have the same or more rights than the individual.

Thats my take. Oh, and by the way I get 5% of the profits from every Chaser Pooper Scooper sold, so everyone buy two!

The new agreement, negotiated by Mikes Train House, allows for free use of the logos, under licensing, and supervision.

I hear Kato is releasing an AC44W with WANF-11-Chaser's face on it this summer... ("I hear he's big in Japan...")

Many years ago Santa Fe paid Lionel $6,000 to put the warbonet on the E units when it wanted the Super Chief to get some publicity. How times have changed.

It really is a sign of the times that trademark issues have finally become an issue in model railroading. Like WANF-11 Chaser posted there were companies in the 1970's (and probably both before and since then) who didn't use the proper logo on the correct piece of rolling stock or motive power. However it was a railroad logo on railroad equipment, and it was obvious that it wasn't a legal issue to the railroads back then.

Model railroad manufacturers shouldn't be the target of railroad legal departments. As WANF-11 Chaser also wrote, it's the manufacturers of non-model railroad items that the railroad companies need to concern themselves with.

Of course what I'm really waiting for is the first lawsuit against a model railroad manufacturer because the modeler couldn't build the model the way the box art depicted it !

With the UP flap settled, largely in our favor given that the licensing fees are gone from model railroad equipment, it's time to once again consider that we've been largely off the hook in this corner of hobbydom.

Licensing fees in other hobbies are at extortion levels and cause many products to not be produced at all. Some trademark owners simply do not allow their logos to be used, period; some airlines come to mind. And then of course there is the infamous "United Postal Service" truck which was sold because a certain other "UPS" didn't (and perhaps still doesn't) allow any use of their name or trademarks.

You may be familiar with the Maisto "graffiti cars" that were sold in Wal-Mart; they had CSX-owned trademarks on them. Not to start a debate about Wal-Mart or grafitti here; the point is that the trademarks were used without CSX permission and they got all over that once they were informed. I can't say as I blame them.

Otto Vondrak wrote:I hear Kato is releasing an AC44W with WANF-11-Chaser's face on it this summer... ("I hear he's big in Japan...")

I do bear a resemblance to Mr Sparkle. (you Simpsons fans know what I'm talking about )